Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of the Left Main Coronary Artery: A Contemporary Narrative Review

Background: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the left main coronary artery remains uncertain because this lesion involves a large myocardial territory and requires a careful balance between ischemic protection and bleeding risk. This review aimed to provide an updated, left-main-focused synthesis of the evidence on DAPT duration after PCI and to clarify how treatment should be individualized according to clinical presentation, lesion complexity, procedural strategy, intravascular imaging, and validated ischemic and bleeding risk scores. Methods: This narrative review with a structured literature search examined studies published from January 2010 through May 2026 in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. From 248 identified records, 62 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 38 randomized controlled trials and 24 observational studies or pooled analyses. The review prioritized direct left-main-specific evidence while also incorporating broader PCI studies with left-main subgroups and indirect contextual evidence relevant to antiplatelet decision-making. Independent screening, duplicate data extraction, and qualitative risk-of-bias assessment were performed, but the review was not prospectively registered, and no meta-analysis was conducted. Results: The available evidence supports an individualized rather than fixed DAPT strategy after left main PCI. In stable patients with anatomically simple left main lesions and acceptable bleeding risk, 6–12 months of DAPT appears generally sufficient, whereas patients with acute coronary syndromes, two-stent distal bifurcation strategies, high thrombotic burden, or other high-ischemic-risk features may derive greater benefit from extending therapy beyond 12 months when bleeding risk is low. Contemporary guideline recommendations are broadly aligned with this risk-adapted approach, and recent trials further refine decision-making: PARTHENOPE provided randomized support for risk-score-guided personalization of DAPT duration, whereas NEO-MINDSET cautioned against immediate aspirin withdrawal after PCI in acute coronary syndromes. Intravascular imaging, especially IVUS and OCT, improves procedural optimization and may help contextualize post-PCI thrombotic risk, although current data do not validate imaging findings alone as a stand-alone criterion for abbreviated DAPT. Conclusions: DAPT duration after left main PCI should be individualized by integrating clinical presentation, lesion and procedural complexity, intravascular imaging, and validated ischemic and bleeding risk tools. A personalized, risk-adapted strategy currently offers the most appropriate framework for balancing ischemic benefit against bleeding harm in this high-risk population.